Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






At&t 10, San Francisco 5, Jennifer 4, America 3, Embarcadero 3, Us 2, California 2, Brandon 1, Artearo Smith 1, The City 1, Jeffrey 1, Monique 1, Darren 1, Katie Ladel 1, Peter Albert 1, Portland 1, Michigan 1, Embarcadero Substation 1, Mta 1, Laqueena Honda 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 25, 2012
    12:00 - 12:30am PST  

will be getting opportunities to look at how a neighborhood can evolve and respond to this opportunity and it's only when that process begins is when we can start answering those questions. we can identify the challenges but we can't propose potential answers to those unless we are doing it through the eir process so this is very much a beginning process. i absolutely acknowledge -- in fact my colleagua brad and i were talking and katie ladel is right and the other cac members it's a deluge of information to bring citizens not necessarily well versed in real estate development in private public partnerships towp speed is who is the waterfront plan? what is the special area plan? what are pro formas and term sheets? and an effort to give fownchzal
information as possible and get to where we are which is truly the beginning there is a lot of talk and we are committed to moving forward in the cac process whether workshop format or a format where there is less formalized agendas but opportunities for free flowing comment and the meetings more productive for everyone and responding thoughtfully. that is something we're willing to do this the many, many months ahead that face this project. i will say again on the 13% what i want to emphasize is that the 13% is reflects the cost of capital that the warriors will have to go out and borrow in order to invest in our public infrastructure. the city uses its balance sheet and its
ability to publicly finance infrastructure for things like roads and parks and a hospital and a new public safety building, and laqueena honda and mos conia expansion and the cruise ship terminal. we invest in our public infrastructure all the time and we do it on things that benefit the public broadly. when we have opportunities to allow a public -- to allow a private partner to take the risk of infrastructure improvements and then be repaid through the value that they create we protect our -- we protect our public finance tools for things that only government can fund, and we think that continuing a model that's really been perfected under redevelopment in which the value that is created is reinvested to pay back our private partners for the
infrastructure that they pay for is a good model to try to emulate on a specific case by case basis, and it is one that has been used with success in some variety of way, in mission bay, on the shipyard, treasure island and we continue to look at for other waterfront projects. i don't know if that answers all of your questions. >> the other part of your question was exactly what is the fiscal feasibility analysis, and jennifer went over that in her presentation. it's a series of very explicit questions asked by the administrative code which really go to are there enough sources and uses of fund it's or enough sources of funds to pay for the plan's project and what are the economic and sort of
work force impacts of the project? and it's really looking at -- it's a city wide look, and because of that -- because it's a city economic analysis of these major projects we typically don't ask the port commission to endorse the fiscal feasibility report. we have an informational hearing like we had tonight and then goes on to the board of supervisors that takes the action under chapter 29. likewise we never have brought a report to a citizen's advisory committee of the report. it's a staff generated document sometimes with the help of consultants, and we certainly share those reports with our interested cac's but we're not asking them to review and comment on the cac. not that we don't do this with this cac and there is a level of interest and we want to honor that in the report, so the only action
before the port commission today is really slow down the schedule for the term sheet. it was contemplated that we would be in front of you seeking term sheet approval about thou and for all the reasons we mentioned earlier in the presentation we think it's important to slow that down and consider coming back in follow between that period of february and april so that's the ac in front of you tonight. >> i guess -- thank you. for what i was getting at for the people that are concerned the opportunity is still there. this is not weighing in on most of the issues with respect to final plans with respect to transportation or views or anything else that comes up, but it does open up the opportunity to start the eir process where that is all weighed in, and we several hope san francisco in
its inevitable fashion people will weigh in and as jeffrey said it lends to a better project and it's not always pretty but people are involved with the city and important to get that and that feedback as things move forward. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i would like to have mike come to mic for a minute. first of all rick i know you have heard all the comments here today, the good and the bad and i know people have concerns. it seems you have commitment to address the concerns of the people, the citizens of san francisco so would you like to say something about that and listening to what people have to say is important for the citizens of san francisco and would you like to say something to that and i know you want
them to be satisfied that you want to work -- this is a joint effort with the warriors but also the community involved as a partner. >> thank you for that opportunity. i think our interest coincide. i really do and the report that jennifer referenced projects that the warrior's ownership group is funding this to the tune of $1 billion, this project, and that is being done privately. for that project to be successful -- it's truly unprecedented and even some of the examples that we looked at and in the discussion there and talking about other arenas and talks about public investment, public tax dollars in those facilities. this is a very different proposal from those that have been referenced here, so in order for that project to work we have exactly the same
needs. okay. we need trpg to work. we need parking to work because if not we're making a really bad investment, so i think for the most part our -- the concerns expressed very much represent the things that we have to tackle and things that we have to tackle and get right and we are committed to the public process. i know that we've had a lot of references to how quickly this is going but i don't think there has been a meeting or request from anyone from the warriors or anyone on the team to be somewhere and talk that hasn't been fulfilled going forward to make sure we get the benefit of that input in creating a project that will be successful and not only for the city but good investment for the warriors. >> thank you. >> well rick while you're up there and i know you have heard some other comments too about minority businesses participating and we hope that
you take that to heart as things progress in terms of hiring tenants in some of the other facilities. >> it's certainly heard. thank you. >> commissioner brandon. >> what's left to say? i personally think this could be a win-win for everyone. i think this could be a great project. i don't think we have done a good job in giving the envelope to the community that they need. >> >> i think the cac is extremely valuable to us and we have depended on them for all of the projects and really want to hear your opinions good, bad and indifferent and we want to hear what you have to say and as jennifer said we need to do a better job and hopefully with this extension -- one thing i didn't hear in the presentation and this sheet of the future community meetings and all of the opportunities for people to give input and i would add one
or two more cac meetings to this agenda just to make sure we're getting the input; that the community is involved in the project and i think it could be a win-win for everyone and i was lucky to be here when the giants was going through this and we heard some of the same concerns and we're not going to make everyone happy but we're going to try and the giants have been great neighbors and i know the warriors will too. thank you everyone. >> okay. i guess i get a chance now. i want to thank the public for all the comments this afternoon and also the port staff and owd and we have been having ongoing discussions. there are a lot of questions out there and some were raised by everyone and i think we need to put the fiscal feasibility study in the right one text. it's the
beginning. we have questions in terms of timing and the financials work in the long run and cash flows and other things so some of it may look worse on the surface than it is and we need to make sure as we understand the process and get the information that the financials do turn out as commissioner brandon said and a win-win. i think i echo my fellow commissioners in terms of what was said and i think the idea of having more meetings with the cac and scheduling because the pace and the schedule probably is going to be very fast but we can certainly do something about the opportunity to have more dialogue with the community and spend the time if necessary to make sure that the understanding is there and have the feedback that is necessary. i think that is a legitimate concern and request and we hear you. i don't think that we're voting today on any final terms. we are not endorsing anything. that's not the request in front
of the port commission today so i have a couple of questions that are more specific but i want to just assure you we have raised a lot of questions ourselves, and we know that we have to get the answers, but there is going to be enough time to get the answers so i think we want the public to be assured we're concerned on these things and we feel that the partnership between the city and the warriors and the port, everybody has the best interests and we will work very hard and we believe there is time to get to the answers and meets the schedules so we will remain oft mist i think on that behalf and the process is important to us. we are going to respect it. what happens so far is not disrespect to the process for the community and we just need to do a better job and make sure we can communicate what you have and how we are addressing those
concerns on behalf of everybody involved here so i have a couple of specific questions. one i just want to understand in the resolution we're talking about creating a performance benchmark for negotiating the conceptual framework so jennifer or brad if you can explain how to give a better definition of that. >> yes commissioner. so the exclusive negotiating agreement is a document that really governs the negotiation between our development partner and city staff, and you approved a resolution authorizing city staff to enter into -- monique and jennifer enter into exclusive negotiating agreement with the warriors. that
happened this summer, and that document set forth a series of target dates and performance dates for different steps along the path that we're on right now, and one of those dates was when the term sheet would be approved by the port commission and the board of supervisors, and the way it was laid out in the exclusive negotiating agreement that you approved this summer was that term sheet approval would happen concurrent with the fiscal feasibility report, which is as i stated earlier typically the way that we do it. the amendment in front of you now would change the target date for the term sheet approval to february 15, 2013, and the actual performance date which is an outside date by which it has to happen to
april 15, 2013 and that gives the additional time between those dates to negotiate the added detail in the term sheet that would go to participation component on the business side. how some of the community services are specifically funded and the other issues we mentioned earlier in the presentation. >> okay. thank you. my other question if peter albert is still here and i appreciate that we have this process going on in understanding the transportation mediation and impacts going forward and since we experienced america's cup now twice i am wondering in the interim and the mode of continuous improvement given that i think we already have some congestion that we experience on the embarcadero what are some of the steps could be taken for the neighborhood and community now rather than waiting for all the studies to
be completed? i think we had findings already out of the recent experiences with fleet week and everything else and what is your department doing to change it and whether it's the traffic lights or i will throw it out -- do we take away things and create more traffic lanes and i don't know and outrageous ideas like that. >> or bike tracks. >> thank you. what we found out the opportunity to pilot has been invaluable because working with america's cup some of the data is now extraordinary. bart alone carried 250,000 more people than it typically does and the giant's celebration day and the important tool we have been working with is having the incident command system. it's not once in a while team that gets assembled. san francisco is extraordinary city with huge
students and hosting responsibilities and an international city with a lot of visitors and with mta what is going on each week and do we have overlap with the bluegrass or fleet week or with the giants like we did. how do we marshal the officers and the parking transit? we can do it and it takes heavy lifting and resources and we learned how to make it more sustainable and to get that level up. having the streetcars and the buses ready in a good state of repair so there are not break downs requiring lead time in the events and look at the procurement cycles and get ahead and have a milestone of this cycle buying this many extra vehicles. we are looking at this now and the workshops -- we had one with the community, the one in december are that opportunity to make sure we're on the right track with their
experience. a woman today talked about the experience of crowded trains for the games and i found that too and we have the opportunity for more frequency and reliability and how to make that work and build it into the finance mechanism. mta is very much at the table too. understand the operation and capital costs. america's cup we have great cost presentation. i can tell you at a later presentation and good to have a debrief and what it takes to be ready for summer. i am happy to have that experience for the planning now for the waterfront. i talk about get through the events and now talking about the permanent legacy and i hope sharing this data and understanding this how we're getting ready for next summer and ultimately ready for the next 30 years. >> thank you. i felt that was
happening and we wanted to make sure we share that and the public hears that and we have learned a lot and the experiences are invaluable to the city and if we consider more things that are happening because some of the issues happening today we don't have to wait for the new arena to experience this. any further comments or are we ready to pass the resolution? all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. >> item 9b request approval of the at&t embarcadero proterrow -- wait. embarcadero po tearo project sheet and authorization to enter into negotiation agreement with at&t all related to portland between pier tweafl and a half and the 3rd street
and block parcels. >> good afternoon commission. brad again here and i have been with the port team with this and various people. we have a couple of representatives from at&t here with whom city staff has been negotiating. darren in the front row and artearo smith was here and still maybe here or his jacket is anyway and i have a brief presentation to you. we have been to you in open session describing this project. it's
an important transmission project designed to provide reliability of power downtown in the event of a major earthquake. is manny around to start the powerpoint presentation? >> sorry for the short delay. so i will start verbally and the slides can catch up. essentially there are a couple of transmission lines that come up from the peninsula through the po tearo power plant and
connect to the embarcadero substation that provide power to downtown. at&t has proposed a new 230kv transmission line to provide redundant transmission line to the embarcadero sub station. at&t and port staff have collectively communicated with the mayor's office, the san francisco public utilities commission and the city administrator about the project. the city administrator was charged by then city administrator ed lee to look at these types of risks to the city in the event of a major seismic event and how we protect against them and weighed in favor of the project. at&t is looking at a number of proposed route s.
one proposed route if approved by the california public utilities commission would involve submerged port property. this is a map showing the potential routes between portero substation and embarcadero substation. you see the submerged route in blue and enter the bay north of pier 30 and south of pier 28. go along a route that is very lose to the current trans bay cable route but several hundred feet away and then enter -- or leave the bay at 23rd street, connecting to a new substation right near the po tero substation. there are two other routes at&t is looking at you through the
process. they're shown in red and green here. the big difference between the routes is submerged route would require construction activities along about seven city blocks whereas the other two routes would involve major construction activities along 40 city blocks . so it's a complicated project. it's an expensive project. it would involve about a 3-mile cable run either submarine or under ground. it would connect to a new 230 kv bus at the embarcadero substation, and that's being constructed as part of a separate project and it would involve new 230 kv switch yard on a portion of the former
power plant site and at&t is in separate negotiations with genon to acquire that substation parcel. i think i have already gone over this so i'm going to be brief about it. i mentioned it would enter the bay along 23rd street, north along this route and exit bay north of pier 30. when entering and exiting the bay they would use horizontal drilling as a means of creating a duct bank and go from the under street area where the cable would be laid to underneath the bay and the bay muds and exiting the bay, and then it would be laid across the bay floor. and that bay floor route is about 2.8 miles. this
is a heavily regulated project under the jurisdiction of the california public utilities commission. they are the lead agency for the purposes of conducting ceqa work. both the city and the port would have a number of permit approvals, either encroachment permits or building permits. there are a variety of state agencies including the regional water quality board that would have to approve the project in all likelihood and the army corps of engineers would weigh in as well. these are federal waters and have jurisdiction over projects like this in federal waters. we have negotiated a proposed term sheet that includes the use that i have described. about half million square feet of submerged land that is used to lay three
separate capables. it would be a 40 year agreement with option to renew for 26 years. annual rent would be established by a formula in the term sheet and based on industrial up land land. we are projecting that value is between $50 a square foot and $75 a square foot. and that would generate $583,000 rent to the port and on the high end $872,000 to the port which would be indexed there after. one of the major public benefits we sought in this negotiation with at&t is port option to buy the ho down
yard and near the pier 70 site. it's adjacent to the pier 70 site. using this appraisal depending whether it's on the low or high end our option to buy it would be 6.$5 million on the low end and 8. nine on the high end. there is a comparison to the term sheet and negotiation agreement that we often super for agreements like this and under that agreement at&t would reimburse the city for port staff and city attorney costs. this is the ho down yard. it's the two parcels on the top left of the screen is separated by michigan street and on port property. on the left side of the parcels is 23rd
street and above is illinois street. what you see in the attached area is the waterfront site where right now port and owd staff are negotiating with forest city about the development of the waterfront site. what is on the ho down yard now is dirt recycling facility and at&t trenches for projects. they bring the dirt to this location and store it and when they want to put it back in the ground they retrieve it from the site. we believe this isn't compatible with the investment in the area and this would be a good site for the port to acquire. what you see in gray here are the historic buildings at pier 70 and 113 and 114 and the other amazing historic resources along